Do we need a time-out in D evolution?

[Sean Kelly]

Walter Bright wrote:
> eao197 wrote:
>> I don't agree with you. As a C++ programmer I'm big fun of 'const' -- 
>> it have saved me from bugs several times. So when const became a part 
>> of D I certaintly rewrite my code with use of const/final/invariant. 
>> To show you how it can affect my project I can say -- in one my rather 
>> big C++ library (~46K lines) there are 121 *.hpp files with ~280 const 
>> methods and ~900 const parameters. I think it is not too easy to write 
>> all that staff without const at first and then carefully rewrite and 
>> retest it with const.
> 
> My experience with const-correctness is you can largely ignore it unless 
> you are writing libraries. If you are transforming bug-free, tested code 
> into const-correct code, it won't need much testing. Adding const isn't 
> likely to break anything at runtime, just at compile time.
> 
> Also, although the design is a bit on the complex side, I don't think 
> that complexity will show through much in user code. With type inference 
> and 'in' parameters, I don't think you'll have to write 'const' all that 
> often - certainly much less than in C++.

I'll admit that one of my reservations about 'const' is the need to 
potentially write twice as many class methods.  I don't suppose there's 
any way around this?


Sean